×
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Charlotta_Clutter 214 points215 points  (74 children)

Is there any outcome or condition under which you would stop this ten-year experiment early?

[–]paulniehaus[S] 225 points226 points  (72 children)

we monitor every recipient pretty closely -- 99%+ followup via call center to check for any issues like asked for a bribe, domestic dispute, etc., and can pause payments in those cases. we'd do the same here. then there are the macro risks (e.g. exchange rate shocks, post-election violence) which we're hedging financially and with the ability to send payment remotely without needing boots on the ground

[–]CoolGuy54 138 points139 points  (18 children)

and can pause payments in those cases

This seems like you're going to be making an enormous sacrifice in data quality by incentivising responses.

People can already work out that you want to hear "I use the money to send my kid to school and buy food and medicine" rather than "I drink it," and are likely to say whatever they think will keep the cash flowing. How much of your data doesn't rely on self-reporting and can't be massaged?

(This probably comes across as more negative than it should: I think you're one of the best charities out there and fully support your idea, don't take it as criticism.)

[–]lost_send_berries 39 points40 points  (2 children)

As I understand it, GiveDirectly wouldn't cut off somebody who is spending their money on drink. It is about giving people the freedom to use the money in the best way for them, not intruding into their lives to check they are doing the "right thing".

They had four reasons to think they got honest responses about alcohol and tobacco.

  1. The survey was done after the money had all been given out.
  2. "the survey team was kept distinct from the intervention team, and denied any association when asked (although it remains possible that at least some respondents nevertheless suspected a connection)"
  3. "in the case of educational and health outcomes, we find very little impact, despite the fact that if respondents were motivated to appear in a good light to the survey team, they would have had an incentive to overstate the benefits of the program in terms of these outcomes" -- IOW, people didn't lie about education and health, so they probably didn't lie about alcohol and tobacco.
  4. "we used a list randomization questionnaire in the endline to complement the direct elicitation of alcohol and tobacco expenditure. In this method, respondents are not directly asked whether they consumed alcohol or tobacco, but instead are presented with a list of five common activities such as visiting friends or talking on the phone, and asked how many of these activities they performed in the preceding week. The respondents were divided into three groups: one group was presented only with this short list; a second group was presented with the short list and an extra item, consuming alcohol; and for a third group, the extra item was consuming tobacco. Comparing the means across the different groups allows us to estimate the proportion of respondents who consumed alcohol and tobacco, without any respondent having to explicitly state that they did so. Table 2 in the Online Appendix suggests not only that there was not treatment effect on alcohol and tobacco consumption when using this method, but additionally shows that the estimates of alcohol and tobacco consumption obtained through the list method are very similar (and if anything, lower) than those obtained through direct elicitation. Note, however, that a concern with this method is that it injects noise into the data, and the results are therefore imprecise." -- so in other words, people asked directly about alcohol and tobacco gave similar answers to the people asked indirectly, suggesting people weren't that touchy about the subject.

This is all from the research paper.

[–]CoolGuy54 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is a pretty solid response to my concerns, and the sort of thing I vaguely expected to hear based on all the good things I've heard about this outfit.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks for finding that

[–][deleted] 135 points136 points  (30 children)

So, OOC (as someone who has worked overseas in aid and development before) how accurate do you think your responses are to call center follow-ups when the recipients know their answers determine whether or not the source of their money will shut off? People desperate for income will say and do anything to keep the money flowing, as we all would. That desperation actually increases when they see you as an endless supply of money and they want to protect it.

Good luck to you and your project. I have quite a few doubts based on my experiences in underdeveloped and developing countries, and my doubts about basic income's impact on economies, but I applaud any novel approach and heartfelt attempts to actually fix a problem and hope you happen upon some magic key in your work.

[–]patrickmurphyphoto 89 points90 points  (15 children)

As a Data Analyst, self reported data is always the least trustworthy.

One of my favorites is the US (atleast WA State) Probation/Parole checkin call. "Have you broken any laws, left the county, done any drugs, or drink etc" I just can't imagine a parolee saying yes to any of those under any circumstances.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Flussiges 28 points29 points  (0 children)

    As the late great Berra would say, in theory, there is nothing wrong with theory. In practice...

    [–]wdmc2008 16 points17 points  (2 children)

    There isn't a disconnect. People who study data understand the problems with it very well. The problem, in any discipline, is the cost associated with collecting better data. At some point, you just have to work with what you can get and understand the limitations of it. (And make sure that the people who read about the study understand the limitations as well.)

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Seriously check any serious empirical economic work. The amount of controls they have to make sure the estimates aren't biased is insane.

    [–]iagox86 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I just recently went through paperwork for a greencard. They ask you - literally - if you're a nazi, communist, terrorist, polygamist, drug smuggler, etc etc. I had to go down a long list of question and select 'No' on all of them :)

    [–]benigntugboat 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    This shouldnt be used in questions with critical answers and im not asvocating self check in as a solution to any problem etc. But its really common for people on probation to turn themselves in. A lot of people confide in probation officers about slipups with drug use or police encounters even in non arrests and days where they arent getting drug tested. It can be attributes to whatver you want but i was on longterm probation attending a probation office in a low income area and the office door was left open when waiting in line so everyone hears just about everything. I personally think its a mostly a mix of trying to give their side before they get caught just incase and how regular slip ups are for the individuals but probation self check ins are an example that goes against most expectations.

    [–]PM_me_ur_DIYpics 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    When I was troubled youth I had to meet with a shrink.

    Every meeting he asked me if I was suicidal, or psychotic, or about to become a serial killer (in his own words).

    After a few meetings, I asked him, "Why would anyone say yes to any of those questions?"

    "Well, I wouldn't expect you to answer 'yes' to any of those questions, but I'm required by law to ask them. Also, there is a surprising amount of people that do say 'yes'."

    I can only assume that some people just tell the truth. You and I might think it's a bad decision, but we probably also think many other decisions they make are bad.

    [–]paulniehaus[S] 38 points39 points  (0 children)

    Autorotator - to be clear, the outcome data we'll use to measure impact will be collected through surveys of treatment and control groups conducted by a third party (eg IPA on several previous studies), as is usual with impact evals. GD won't have any contact with control group so couldn't call them anyway.

    this response here was about process data we collect and watch at higher frequency to look for bad outcomes that might lead us to hit pause - e.g. recipient tell us that local mobile money agent is asking for bribes.

    [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (10 children)

    ..."Out Of Character?"

    [–]Joakley3000 12 points13 points  (3 children)

    Out of curiosity. Had to think about that one ttul.

    [–]rmphys 4 points5 points  (2 children)

    My first thought as well, old RP days...only other thing I can think of is Out of Context.

    [–]JurgenBIG 171 points172 points  (17 children)

    Hi Paul - Jurgen here, I am involved in the Finnish experiment. First off, kudos for the planned experiment - awesome stuff. I'm very interested in what we can take from the experiments conducted in Kenya (Namibia, India) to learn about basic income in the context of Europe, Canada and US. The big issue here is that both the policy and political context are so different. What do you think are main lessons we can expect to learn from the GiveDirectly experiment that transcend the particulars of a developing world context?

    [–]paulniehaus[S] 130 points131 points  (16 children)

    Jurgen thanks for joining - we're likewise excited to watch and learn from your project

    agreed there are big differences and hopefully there will be dozens of high-quality tests globally in the next few years. if nothing else we want the East Africa experiment to motivate further testing.

    beyond that though I do think the political opposition to UBI rests on some pretty strongly held beliefs about human nature - other people are irresponsible, we can judge better what's best for them - that this project will speak to, and at least force a closer examination.

    [–]JurgenBIG 53 points54 points  (7 children)

    Excellent points Paul. The human nature assumption is definitely one to be challenged (and being challenged) from a variety of angles. Beyond that it is interesting to see how basic income responds to local variation - its robustness across particular contexts is something we should examine and hopefully subsequently develop into a key argument.

    The most interesting feature in your experiment, and something we just can't do in Europe/North America, is the long term perspective. Even the expectation of long-term income security should produce tangible outcomes.

    Look forward to seeing more from you guys. Keep up the good work!

    [–]u38cg2 9 points10 points  (5 children)

    something we just can't do in Europe/North America

    Why not? Any reinsurance office would happily write an indemnity for you, and an annuity for a life aged (x) to continue until normal retirement age shouldn't be difficult to price. If you raised an equivalent $30m to throw at this and paid a $1k a month, you should be able to pay for ~150 participants, I'd reckon.

    [–]JurgenBIG 26 points27 points  (4 children)

    in short: no where near the numbers you need to get some proper results, let alone a host of other problems raising that amount of money for such a small group.

    [–]patrickmurphyphoto 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Can anyone find the # of recipients for JurgenBIG or GiveDirectly?

    I wasn't able to find it quickly, or even just what number you would need to accurately gain insight.

    [–]kyleissuper 117 points118 points  (20 children)

    Could you summarize, in as simple terms as possible, how your experiments are rigorous? How do we refrain from imposing our biased expectations on the experiments' conclusions?

    [–]paulniehaus[S] 145 points146 points  (19 children)

    thanks Kyle, super question =)

    I think there are a few key practices that matter a lot here. First, experimental - randomly assigned treatment and control groups. Second, pre-announced and pre-specified. Defined in advance what outcomes you'll measure, so you can't ex-post data mine. Third, involve credible external researchers whose careers depend on a reputation for objectivity. We're working w/ Abhijit Banerjee on this one for example.

    There's a lot more and this is one of my favorite topics, but that's a snapshot

    [–]JurgenBIG 13 points14 points  (15 children)

    Not entirely sure what you see as the problem of ex-post data mining. Evelyn Forget's work on the health impact of Mincome does exactly that and while we need to be careful about overstating things (Evelyn herself is the first to insist on that!), her work has proven extremely interesting.

    [–]BullockHouse 39 points40 points  (5 children)

    The issue is that if you don't declare your metrics up front, it's possible to hunt around hundreds of dependent variables until you find a few that improved by chance. It's a standard technique for massaging the data.

    [–]JurgenBIG 8 points9 points  (4 children)

    I get the point about massaging stats in all its variety (Mark Twain wasn't far off!), but also worry about the idea that we should stick to a few pre-specified metrics and leave it at that. Discovering a dependent variable that has improved "by chance" may or may not be something worth taking seriously or exploring further. Social science being as complex and messy as it is, best practice lies somewhere in between. Anyways, not quite the forum to debate these points :)

    [–]BullockHouse 41 points42 points  (3 children)

    If you discover a trend through data mining, and want to compose a second experiment to investigate it, that's entirely fine and kosher.

    But measuring multiple dependent variables on an ad-hoc basis, after the data has come in, without disclosing that fact and doing a proper Bonferroni correction is actual straight-up statistical malpractice. If you get a result that way and report it, it's fraud.

    If social science is complex and messy, that means it's easier to make mistakes. That means we need to be more rigorous and impose higher standards - not lower.

    [–]JurgenBIG 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Yes on each of the points above, thx for clarifying :)

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]BullockHouse 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      Bonferroni corrections tend to understate findings if the dependent variables are correlated (the correction assumed independence). Aside from that, it works pretty well, for the simple statistical problem it's trying to solve. Unfortunately, that's not the only way to massage data. Pre-registration of studies + Bonferroni correction for multiple hypotheses eliminates a few potential issues, but we unfortunately don't have a protocol that can eliminate all forms of dishonesty.

      [–]ohfuckit 42 points43 points  (4 children)

      The problem is that you can find effects that rise to the level of statistical significance solely as a matter of chance, and misunderstand them as meaningful conclusions. Or, even if you don't misunderstand, the inevitable tabloid newspaper headline will misunderstand.

      Which is not to say that you can't discover extremely interesting things to investigate further!

      [–]MaxGhenis 4 points5 points  (2 children)

      Preregistration is considered a strong antidote to both p-hacking and publication bias. It doesn't preclude follow-up analysis outside the preregistered metrics, but they should be taken with more grains of salt. If nothing else it ensures all the relevant metrics are published, not just the newsworthy or significant ones.

      [–]syd_the_leper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Ex-post data is useful as a basis to continue experimentation, but it's problematic to draw conclusions about variables that were not initially targeted.

      [–]americanstreet 77 points78 points  (36 children)

      In the test will the UBI be given to every adult, one per household or every person in the household regardless of age. If there is an age cut off, what will it be?

      [–]paulniehaus[S] 87 points88 points  (35 children)

      one per adult. different views out there on whether UBI should include transfers to parents on behalf of their kids; our sense is we already have a lot of evidence on impact of child support grants (eg Kenya, S Africa) so higher value use of resources to focus on estimating impacts of the adult BI

      [–]drivefaster 48 points49 points  (2 children)

      Will you open source your data?

      [–]paulniehaus[S] 26 points27 points  (1 child)

      not "our" data technically as they will be collected by a 3rd party research outfit (eg IPA on several past projects), but yeah bottom line once the research gets published the data have to be available to others to replicate / stress test etc. standard practice at journals now.

      [–]Madhoman 46 points47 points  (10 children)

      What have been the biggest objections to both the concept and the organization?

      [–]paulniehaus[S] 73 points74 points  (9 children)

      I think the big three are (1) people will waste / drink it, (2) ppl will stop working, and (3) gov't can'd afford it.

      (1) and (2) we'll test and learn about, though so far the evidence on other forms of cash transfers has been the opposite -see below

      (3) is true in some places (eg US) and not others. In intl development broadly, though, I think the big picture is looking pretty good - the total global poverty gap is around $65B / year, and ODA alone is double that. From a math perspective, extreme poverty is pretty eliminatable

      work effort - http://economics.mit.edu/files/10849 temptation goods - http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/05/19546774/cash-transfers-temptation-goods-review-global-evidence

      [–]happybabymama 9 points10 points  (0 children)

      On points 1 and 2, what results would it take for you to abandon the UBI concoct as a workable way to reduce or eliminate real poverty?

      [–]IAmNotYourBoss 11 points12 points  (6 children)

      (1) people will waste / drink it, (2) ppl will stop working, and (3) gov't can'd afford it.

      That's not even a comprehensive list of the criticisms that are listed on Wikipedia--let alone the broader discussion. Like, how do we address specific social problems within a UBI framework? How do we manage the inherently distortionary effects of the taxation needed to finance a UBI? How we tailor to specific needs--including those that exceed any UBI transfer payments? How does a monthly UBI check relate to debt? What effect would a UBI have on low-price goods? There are a bunch of concerns beyond just a conservative critique that equally applies to the rest of the welfare state.

      [–]lost_send_berries 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      how do we address specific social problems within a UBI framework?

      How do we address specific social problems without a UBI framework? I don't see a reason for them to be different.

      How do we manage the inherently distortionary effects of the taxation needed to finance a UBI?

      Same as any taxation? It would depend on the attitude of the country what form of taxation they would accept.

      How we tailor to specific needs--including those that exceed any UBI transfer payments?

      That would depend on the form of the UBI. It doesn't necessarily mean eliminating disability, but (eg) in the US a lot of people are on disability even though they want to work, because it gives them an income.

      How does a monthly UBI check relate to debt? What effect would a UBI have on low-price goods?

      Hopefully people will be able to save up money and have less of a need to borrow? Other than that, I don't see what you are asking. As for low-price goods, I don't think it makes much of a difference in a developing country as the goods are coming from the local/national economy anyway. In a developed country, I guess you are referring to the idea that inflation in prices of necessities will claw back some of the extra money given to poor people. Well, it's a theory that might have some validity (although minimum wage studies suggest it doesn't). But ultimately, GiveDirectly is just a charity that does its own thing and can't really answer that.

      There are a bunch of concerns beyond just a conservative critique that equally applies to the rest of the welfare state.

      There's your answer then... the welfare state already exists and is doing well if you ask me. Or poorly if you ask other people.

      [–]crustacean_per_se 8 points9 points  (2 children)

      They don't sound like criticisms of the basic concept, but like implementation difficulties, -unless this would be much more logistically complex than other alternatives, in which case they add up to 1 more criticism of the idea. B

      ut there is already massive overhead in other safety net schemes, and with no safety net, so I doubt that it does add up to significantly more logistical problems than others.

      The question he's answering also says "biggest objections", and he answers with "the big three.." so unless there has been some editing I think you misread something

      [–]TheresWald0 17 points18 points  (2 children)

      A lot of extreme poverty exists in remote areas. Wouldn't localized inflation be a big problem? Could the price of basic goods go up and "cancel out" huge portions of cash transfers?

      [–]paulniehaus[S] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

      we haven't seen evidence of this, but it's one of the questions we're looking in another ongoing study of local market impacts - pre-registration stuff below. my personal best guess prediction is we'll see some temporary price spikes which are what motivate traders to bring in the stuff people now want more of, like in any market.

      https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly https://www.givedirectly.org/pdf/General%20Equilibrium%20Effects%20of%20Cash%20Transfers%20Pre-Reg.pdf

      [–]goodnewsjimdotcom 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      When people have more money to buy food, it encourages farmers to work harder, invest in their farm, and provide more food. This allows the farmer to get more efficient too. Giving money to people directly helps the local economy out.

      [–]snaswa 63 points64 points  (9 children)

      ) What is the minimum amount of cash that a household/individual can receive as Basic Income in the pilot study?

      2) The pilot is planned for a period of 10 - 15 years....if in case, unfortunately someone enrolled in the study passed away in the study period, what happens to their money?

      3) Where households fight over money coming in as Basic Income, like in a scenario where the wife feels she has been working so hard to win the bread for the family, where the husband has never been able to provide for the family, and so the wife feels she should control the family finances, but the husband feels that as (traditional) head of house he should be in charge, what kind of direction can GiveDirectly provide on this?

      4) My village is poor and I know that people shouldn’t put it individual requests, but I feel this is a great opportunity to shed light on the poverty issues in my own home village of Namawanga in Western Kenya. People struggle and always have as far back as I remember. A lot of them with no dignity of life as a direct result of extreme poverty. A Basic Income would definitely greatly contribute to the overall improved quality of life, plus QALYs. Among biggest challenges at home for the poor village of about 3,000 hardworking people is lack a proper access to safe, clean, drinking water and income poverty. If you’re interested in a more detailed account of the poverty issues of my village please let me know so I can email it to a team member at GiveDirectly. It basically a summary of the priority needs and a crude situational analysis of the respective poverty issues.

      [–]paulniehaus[S] 47 points48 points  (8 children)

      awesome to get a question from W Kenya. quick answers

      1 - we're finalizing, looking at around $0.75 nominal = $1.50 PPP

      2 - default is transfers stop, which is what most people have in mind when they describe a UBI. we're considering if there's a way to make temporary exceptions for parents of young kids.

      3 - if anything data so far on cash transfer have shown reductions in domestic violence, but we'll keep measuring

      4 - really appreciate and think it speaks to why we want to run this test. the village selection process is going to be based on systematic data and will be randomized, so can't make any commitments, but it sounds like Namawanga will have as good a shot as any

      [–]gozu 14 points15 points  (4 children)

      I don't understand what you mean by nominal and PPP. Are you giving them $1.50 a day?

      [–]MythicalZoan 37 points38 points  (2 children)

      Nominal is the numerical value of the money given whereas PPP is purchasing power parity, something which addresses the fact that 1 usd may buy half a mcchicken in America but can buy 1 mcchicken in India. Basically you get different quantities of goods for the same value of money in different countries. PPP accounts for this, so 0.75usd nominal buy, in the African country, what 1.50 would in the US.

      [–]ShadyG 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      So someone in Namawanga will understand they'd be getting $0.75. Someone from the U.S. would understand they're getting the equivalent of $1.50.

      [–]gozu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Ok, Thank you for clarifying that.

      I still don't know how much money they're given. Is it 75 cents a day? which works out to ~$22/month?

      And if that's the minimum, what's the maximum? Double that for 2 adults?

      [–]fo747 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      I think it means they would give $0.75 in actual money and, given differences in prices between the United States and Kenya, this would give the recipient the purchasing power of $1.50, when considering that goods are cheaper to buy in Kenya.

      PPP would be Purchasing Power Parity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity

      [–]snaswa 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Hey Paul thanks for the response....I know of a great international charity programme,Possibilities Africa, that is involved in Micro finance and Micro-credit lending in communities back home and elsewhere in Africa. Here,community members get to borrow small loans as capital to start Income Generating Activities and some get to have Productive Assets. I've had a chance to listen to Dean Karlan's (Yale Economics) argument on how the negatives of Microcredits often outweigh the positives in terms of any guaranteed average increase in household income or average increase in consumption...Thinking about it now,and with accurate and reliable feedback from people involved in this programme at home,the biggest challenge to success in Microcredit for poor communities is lack sustainability where,say,a poor household or group of individuals may not always have the security to secure sustainable small loans or have the capacity to maintain a productive asset.Would groups or households or people like these qualify for Basic Income,too as a stimulus to the Microcredits effort?

      [–]Bernicus 61 points62 points  (7 children)

      Givewell suggests that donations to public health charities such as the Against Malaria Foundation - who distribute insecticide treated bed nets - and the Deworm the World Initiative or Schistosomiasis Control Initiative are ~5-10x more effective than donations GiveDirectly. Do you agree think that it is plausible that donations to public health charities do more good than donations to cash transfer charities? If so, are there additional, non-impact reasons for donating to GiveDirectly instead?

      [–]paulniehaus[S] 93 points94 points  (2 children)

      I think we're different. our goals go well beyond the direct impact of the cash; we're aiming to reform the aid industry and get people to routinely explain why they think they can do better than cash transfers. a lot of money gets spent every year on stuff with no evidence at all, or evidence it doesn't work. so we're really happy that GiveWell now does this, and we'd expect that in any given year they ought to be able to find a few opportunities that "beat cash."

      the basic income project is a good example of a situation where we think we can both delivery highly cost-effective direct aid to individuals and also in doing so inform and reshape a much larger and important policy debate

      [–]sspdl 11 points12 points  (1 child)

      Is a combination between goods/service provision charities and GiveDirectly's cash transfer a possibility you would consider? Especially given the findings from Blattman, Jamison and Sheridan (2015) "Reducing Crime and Violence: Experimental evidence..." which were that combining their counselling treatment AND a cash grant was more effective than either by themselves.

      [–]ActiveFrontEnd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Actually what I love best about GiveDirect is that they don't provide goods and services. They question "what if we just gave money and let individuals decide how they want to use it". And the answer might be results better and worse than other charities. If a charity can't beat just giving money, then that charity is a wasted effort.

      [–]randopoit 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      donations to public health charities such as

      ?

      Is this a fair framing of Givewell's recommendations? GiveDirectly is one of four charities that Givewell calls Top Charities. Certainly, GW's top recommendation is to donate to the Against Malaria Foundation, but that does not equate to a position by Givewell that "public health charities do more good than donations to cash transfer charities."

      [–]Bernicus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      If you click the link I posted and scroll down to the summary, there is a table where they estimate that AMF, DtWI and SCI are ~5-10x more cost effective than GiveDirectly.

      [–]eirikm 20 points21 points  (18 children)

      Will the UBI be adjusted to fit the needs of individuals? For instance, will you give extra money to people with (more) children, and what about people who themselves are, or who have children who are, disabled?

      [–]2noame 61 points62 points  (7 children)

      Just FYI, but in the basic income experiments in India and Namibia where again everyone got the same amount, it had greater effects on the disabled.

      From the India UBI experiment:

      First, it had strong welfare, or “capability”, effects. There were improvements in child nutrition, child and adult health, schooling attendance and performance, sanitation, economic activity and earned incomes, and the socio-economic status of women, the elderly and the disabled.

      Second, it had strong equity effects. It resulted in bigger improvements for scheduled caste and tribal households, and for all vulnerable groups, notably those with disabilities and frailties. This was partly because the basic income was paid to each individual, strengthening their bargaining position in the household and community.

      [–]paulniehaus[S] 33 points34 points  (2 children)

      we likely won’t adjust sizing based on the individual. we’re considering allowing individuals to choose their payment structure - monthly/quarterly/etc - to let people customize the payments some to their needs. I think the modifications you're suggesting would be smart things to test if we had the next $10M...

      [–]hyouko 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      Are you worried that less-frequent payment structures could lead to payday-loan type problems?

      [–]MaxGhenis 6 points7 points  (6 children)

      Children aside, people with disabilities have higher financial needs primarily to cover health expenses, and these would be better covered by healthcare policy IMO. In practice it often doesn't cover everything (e.g. home medical supplies) and they may incur other costs (e.g. accessible housing) but these are arguably deficiencies in healthcare policy and building codes. It'd be cleaner for basic income to focus on poverty elimination.

      [–]madpiano 8 points9 points  (5 children)

      The whole point of basic income is, that it isn't the old benefit system. Everyone is entitled to it, no matter the background or anything else. It has to be the same for everyone, otherwise it would be back to square one with all the checks and regulations that need to be made to ensure the person is entitled to extra money. Hence no extra money for children or disabilities.

      Of course people with disabilities may need extra money, so do people with children. But these payments would need to be handled differently or basic income needs to be sufficient so people with disabilities and children can still make ends meet.

      [–]sspdl 9 points10 points  (1 child)

      Based on your activities already, and discussions you have undoubtedly had with policy actors at various levels, are you getting any sense that institutional adoption either by countries themselves, or on a regional/international level is plausible, or is a Basic Income Guarantee limited in a development context in your opinion at the level of charitable giving?

      [–]paulniehaus[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      there's a spectrum, from places voting on it (Switzerland) to places actively debating it (Namibia) to places considering smaller steps in that direction (e.g. India, debating whether to replace food transfers with cash transfers). charitable $ isn't going to fund a UBI at national scales but the opportunity for us a donors is to take the risk here and test something that wouldn't be easy for policy-makers to do

      [–]Pan-Y-Agua 10 points11 points  (1 child)

      I have worked extensively in East Africa including at central-level (with governments) they are institutionally very weak particularly in terms of data harvesting and processing. How does GiveDirectly, if at all, propose the integration of BI at a national level without sacrificing your current levels of efficiency in terms of outputs/outcomes?

      [–]paulniehaus[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      yeah, lots of work to be done here. that's why Michael and I started Segovia (http://www.thesegovia.com/about) - we think the most scalable way we can help other implementing partners and gov'ts.

      [–]themandotcom 22 points23 points  (1 child)

      I've been giving to your organization since it was featured on planet money quite a few years back. Do you guys plan on performing more experiments with direct payments, like differing amounts or different payment periods?

      [–]paulniehaus[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

      thanks for joining us, I really appreciate that. it's been quite a journey.

      yes, we plan to keep the experimentation going - last year I think every dollar we delivered was part of at least one experiment, and currently we're doing a whole range - the UBI, one on macro impacts of cash influxes, one with behavioral economists on some of the transfer structure questions you posed, one with USAID on benchmarking their spend... there's an enormous amount to be learned. the hard part is prioritizing =)

      [–]because_its_there 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      Has Heifer International ever changed their stance on measuring their versus GiveDirectly's results? And was there any blowback (which may be too strong a word) on that discussion? (Edit: for reference, the NPR article Cash, Cows and the Rise of Nerd Philanthropy.) That one of Heifer's VP's said "We're not about experiments. These are lives of real people" might resonate with people that don't understand the science and think "experimenting" with people is bad.

      Also, a comment: I loved Peter Singer's book, The Most Good You Can Do, and since reading it, I've changed my charitable giving to be almost exclusively GiveDirectly.

      [–]lost_send_berries 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      To be fair to Heifer, they also claimed they had an evaluation, although it was (a) not an experiment (b) they weren't willing to provide it!

      Since Givewell launched, the idea of measuring effectiveness has gone mainstream. While before it was limited to big organisations like WHO and USAID, now even Charity Navigator plans to rate charities on whether they report on their own results, although they won't be actually reading or scoring those reports.

      Of course, I can still browse Charity Navigator's "Top 10 Best Practices of Savvy Donors" and not even get a hint of "Why don't you check whether the charity has measured how much good it's doing and how it compares to other charities?". For that, there's still always Givewell. :)

      [–]Pan-Y-Agua 234 points235 points  (274 children)

      Discussions surrounding basic income in Western contexts are usually framed and critiqued around the notion of deserving and undeserving recipients. How do we get past this notion and have meaningful discussions about the role and implementation of universal basic income?

      [–]paulniehaus[S] 146 points147 points  (2 children)

      in many ways I think this is the same discussion we've been having with folks ever since starting GD- how should we think about the poor, what do the data say. I think it takes time for perceptions to change, but I always find people react really positively to the data (below).

      work effort: http://economics.mit.edu/files/10849

      temptation goods: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/05/19546774/cash-transfers-temptation-goods-review-global-evidence

      [–]Nick_Juma 34 points35 points  (0 children)

      Thanks for this great idea whose time has come. I do think that Give Directly is on the right path and the strategy is going to be a game changer as it (GD) shows the world the way to deal with the poverty menace. My question to you is this; Knowing too well that some populations (especially in Africa) have been politically isolated because of their voting patterns during elections, which makes the incumbents vindictive and denies them opportunities. How is Give Directly going to handle such populations without rubbing the governments of the day the wrong way?

      [–]MorningLtMtn 40 points41 points  (220 children)

      Discussions surrounding basic income in Western contexts are usually framed and critiqued around the notion of deserving and undeserving recipients.

      This seems false to me. I've never seen this critique of basic income. The critiques I've seen revolve around the effects that Basic Income would have on inflation.

      [–]theCactiKing 60 points61 points  (84 children)

      This is exactly my question.

      If everybody starts at a minimum salary, how long before prices rise to the point that those living on minimum salary alone are unable to buy anything? At that point, will they not be in the same boat they were in without the salary?

      [–]TunaNugget 44 points45 points  (27 children)

      It seems to me that it should only increase prices to the degree that it increases overall demand.

      Let's say you have an economy where the living wage is $80. You have 1,000,000 dollars and 1,000 people in this economy, the income very unevenly distributed.

      If you hand out $100 to everybody, you'll have 1,100,000 in the economy, and you'd expect inflation of 10%. So the person who had 0 income yesterday gets $100, but now only has $90.00 additional spending power after the inflation. But that's $90 more than he had before.

      [–][deleted]  (5 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]ApplecakesMcGee 6 points7 points  (4 children)

        This is one of the big misconceptions that a lot of this data tends to address. People actually don't tend to kick their feet up and do nothing. It's a basic income. It means you won't starve and you'll afford housing. It doesn't get you luxuries. People tend to still want to work for those things. The goal is to free people from working for survival and meet the survival part.

        [–]pzerr 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        They did do this experment in Canada. People did work less just not as much as was expected.

        [–]ApplecakesMcGee 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Which, depending on the circumstances, could be the point. Have time to take care of family matters and not be a slave to a crappy job just to survive.

        [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (8 children)

        But the person who had zero dollars before essentially produced zero demand because he could not buy anything. Now he is producing $100 worth of demand which would result in much more inflationary pressure.

        [–]theCactiKing 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        That's a really useful example; thanks for sharing it.

        [–]sallymoose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        That would be an over all inflation rate expectation, but inflation manifests itself very unequally. Any good that is desirable will likely hyper inflate and what happens when you run out of donations? You're not building a stable economy. Of you want to help them provide them with capital investments, businesses, a friendly business environment. Many think of Africa as a place with few regulations, but quite the opposite is true. The government's continue to run businesses out of there and prevent a booming economy to take hold.

        [–]DeathByBamboo 13 points14 points  (6 children)

        Inflation doesn't eat up all gains from large scale increased wealth. It will likely eat up a percentage, but there are other monetary policies that can be manipulated to counteract or discourage inflation. It's a concern, but not an insurmountable obstacle.

        [–][deleted]  (3 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]mrwillingum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Might not directly increase the wealth but it will increase morale and ultimately productivity.

          [–]matunos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          If the money is coming from donations outside of the country, as in the case of GiveDirectly, it presumably does lead to overall growth in a country's wealth.

          [–]MorningLtMtn 16 points17 points  (40 children)

          Exactly. Once everyone has a basic income, it's a simple matter for businesses to raise their prices to suck up that "extra" money in the market place. Then we're back at square one over night.

          [–]DeathByBamboo 61 points62 points  (10 children)

          That makes sense on a micro level, in a closed system with no outside forces. But that's not how the real world, with lots of competing forces, behaves. It would certainly be a destabilizing force, but not one that can't be accounted for.

          [–]AmusingAnecdote 34 points35 points  (20 children)

          That assumption requires universal collusion amongst firms. It would probably drive some demand-pull inflation, but there are plenty of reasons to suspect that competition will keep the price level close to constant for a lot of goods.

          A more likely source of inflation in my opinion, is a little cost-push inflation as workers would have less incentive to take ultra low wages, potentially driving up the cost of labor.

          But the question isn't whether it would drive inflation (it probably would) the question is whether the increase in purchasing power exceeds the inflation and whether that leads to increased positive life outcomes like education and entrepreneurship. And for that, we need experimental data

          [–]csreid 28 points29 points  (6 children)

          A more likely source of inflation in my opinion, is a little cost-push inflation as workers would have less incentive to take ultra low wages, potentially driving up the cost of labor.

          From a non-economics perspective, I think it's important that we really understand what this means. Driving up the price of labor is, in my opinion, unequivocally wonderful.

          Being able to leave a shitty job is probably the most freeing feeling I've ever had.

          [–]agent0731 6 points7 points  (0 children)

          Employers will be very much against that considering job insecurity is where their profit comes from.

          [–]alluringlion 1 point2 points  (3 children)

          It's also very important to emphasize that this is a non-economic stance

          [–]AmusingAnecdote 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          Not exclusively non-economic. If people are in jobs exclusively because they can't afford to leave them, you end up with people employed in jobs that they aren't good at (or aren't motivated to perform well) and that hurts worker productivity. But you're right that the "freeing feeling" doesn't actually help GDP or anything like that.

          [–]MorningLtMtn 24 points25 points  (6 children)

          That assumption requires universal collusion amongst firms.

          Why would you say that. When government made easy money college loans, there wasn't universal collusion amongst schools. They all just independently started raising their prices to soak up all that extra money.

          [–]AmusingAnecdote 10 points11 points  (0 children)

          That's not exactly analogous. Schools are public institutions and don't face the same competitive pressures that normal businesses do. Also, the single purpose allocation of school grants means that schools are competing for each other with non-price competition for money that can't go elsewhere and because they are publicly backed, they have no incentive to not spend it.

          Businesses in an area with UBI, however, would have to worry about competitors lowering or maintaining their prices if they tried to raise prices and "soak up" the money. That could be problematic if villagers had single suppliers for things and could use monopolist pricing, but that would've already been a problem and the added money in communities with UBI could allow entrepreneurial recipients to open their own shops, driving the price down below that of the monopolist.

          [–]parka19 11 points12 points  (0 children)

          Because a business that doesn't raise their prices will have people wanting to shop there. Schools are based on their reputation and the education you think you will receive there. Not the same for 2 business selling the exact same product; the cheaper one will likely have higher sales. Thus, only a collusion among competition to raise prices globally would raise the price of goods as mentioned

          [–]matunos 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          College is a market where I imagine increasing supply is expensive and difficult. Hence, growth in demand thanks to financial aid that outpaces growth in supply can be expected to lead to increased prices.

          However, when we talk about price of schooling, we should also remember to take into account Baumol's Cost Disease, which, barring innovation that increases productivity significantly (which it has yet to do in education), the cost of education is expected to naturally grow faster than inflation, even if supply and demand are unchanged.

          [–]Sandor_at_the_Zoo 3 points4 points  (4 children)

          Its also worth remembering that the Fed is really really good at stopping inflation. So likely the question wouldn't be "how did this increase in inflation affect the economy" but something more like "how did this increase in fed funds rate affect the economy". Plus, if we assume that this is tax financed then the only inflationary pressure would be from changing distribution, changes in monetary velocity or, as you said, changes in reservation wage (though the effect of that on aggregate wages isn't obvious is it?).

          [–]AmusingAnecdote 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Certainly true in the US. Not as true where these studies are being conducted, but my understanding is that they are cooperating with local governments, so it doesn't seem like it would cause runaway inflation, but again, that's why we need experimental data.

          [–]Sandor_at_the_Zoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          That is a good point, I was focusing only on places with competent central banks. For everywhere else I don't even want to speculate before the data comes in.

          [–]S_K_I 1 point2 points  (3 children)

          The counter-argument is that automation is outpacing our ability to keep up with robots taking over jobs. Some of the most brilliant minds, which includes Hawking and Gates, both conclude that 40% of jobs will be automated by 2045. Now, even if both are wrong, we still have to re-evaluate what a job will mean in the 21st century, because imagine what the world will look like a hundred or two-hundred years from now. At the pace technology has exponentially increased in the last 20 years, the concept of money and inflation is going to look awfully old and out-dated when the basic fundamental needs for most humans will be basically met in the coming years.

          [–]Tobl4 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          I have seen both. I'd guess you move in circles already more open to the idea of BI or welfare in general since they argue about problems with its implementation, not about it being morally wrong to begin with.

          [–][deleted]  (121 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]chuckymcgee 6 points7 points  (120 children)

            Eh, except in theory, what people do with their basic income will naturally separate the paths of the deserving from the undeserving. You'll have some people able to seek out education and employment, building wealth along the way and some people blow it on Doritos and cocaine. If there is a basic income, there's a strong argument against specific benefits programs, since that basic income should already be enough to cover basic amenities.

            [–]csreid 10 points11 points  (13 children)

            I think every proposal I've seen for a UBI involves replacing every other assistance program with it.

            [–]Soren_Lorensen 3 points4 points  (12 children)

            But then the question becomes, there are going to be people who take their monthly check and blow it on cocaine or weed or shit a PS4, and then not have any money left. What do we do with those people? Do we give them double UBI so they don't die?

            [–]dwwojcik 9 points10 points  (9 children)

            I say no. Giving them the means to survive without having to work doesn't absolve them of the responsibility of taking care of their finances. You get a set amount of money that is known to be enough, if you blow it on weed and video games then you either get a job or starve.

            [–]Zargabraath 1 point2 points  (7 children)

            I agree with your philosophy...however there are indeed many highly irresponsible people and those with addictions and mental illness who would starve.

            needless to say we decided as a society having people starve in the streets, even if it is entirely their own fault, is not acceptable.

            my personal solution would be more of an emphasis on identifying and institutionalizing/treating those who are so addicted and/or mentally ill that they are unable to act in their own self interest

            [–]dwwojcik 1 point2 points  (5 children)

            Sure, basic income wouldn't make homeless shelters go away. If anything it would make homeless shelters better, because they'd be less crowded. People who have bad luck wouldn't be homeless any more, only the people who have serious problems and need help.

            [–]Zargabraath 1 point2 points  (4 children)

            the problem is that the funding for universal basic income is generally considered to come from replacing most or all other social programs, so the funding from the homeless shelters would be gone to fund the UBI

            [–]mrwillingum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Wholeheartedly agree. It's a fair shot, not an advantage.

            [–]1standarduser 15 points16 points  (9 children)

            Is there any reason not to start with Universal basic health care, followed by universal basic nutrition (similar to food stamps in America, but for everyone)?

            It seems many people are against this, and instead only want to give cash.

            The reason food stamps and Healthcare only for the poor is a bad idea is that you lose the benefits when you make money, encouraging you to stay poor or work under the table. If it's for everyone, then that argument is off the table.

            [–]EnsignRedshirt 11 points12 points  (5 children)

            Plenty of places in the developed world already have a basic level of healthcare. It works pretty well, and costs the same or less government resources as the US's private system. Anyone who is worried about providing universal health coverage is probably just ignorant. It's a thoroughly tested model that works in many, many places in the world.

            For those of us who already have relatively robust healthcare systems, UBI is a good next step. People will spend money on food if they need food, shelter if they need shelter, etc. UBI, from my perspective, is about simplifying the process for people to get government support. Markets are pretty good at making certain things efficient. Occasionally theres some failure in the markets, but mostly it would be way easier and more efficient to let people just sort out things like housing and food and clothing and other basic necessities themselves with cash. They'll know what they need better than the government, and trying to get more efficient about it would probably just cost more in administration.

            Things like healthcare and education are things that need more infrastructure, support, and government funding in order to work really well, so markets aren't the best way to sort those things out. For that, basic government coverage is probably the best thing. Universal public schooling is already fully implemented in most places, and some even have free or heavily subsidized post-secondary coverage. Universal healthcare exists in most developed countries. Universal basic income would probably cover off pretty much every other basic need.

            [–]Toxic_charity_ 6 points7 points  (1 child)

            Hi Paul, thank you for doing this. GiveDirectly is one of the charities I always use as an example to people when they ask about the dangers of charitable giving, so could I like share my experience and ask a question?

            In 2015 I was doing charity work in rural Kenya, specifically Siaya county, Sigombre ward, in the village of Got Osimbo. It was during this time I learned how messy and complicated charity is. I had read a book called Toxic Charity, by Lupton, whose main premise is that most charitable actions end up harming the receivers in the long run. He goes through countless examples of harm, from loss of dignity, to reduced work ethic, to an attitude of dependency and entitlement toward the goods of others. I would also like to point to a documentary called Poverty Inc. that delivers a very similar message to that of Toxic Charity, but is set in Haiti.

            In Kenya I met people with workable, fertile land who refused to farm because it was easier to parade their kids in front of charities and ask for food/clothing. Local farmers/cloth merchants hated whenever a charity came through because they could not compete with the flood of free food/clothing that came along into the market. There were some people who would befriend charities and act as if they were solely responsible for the presence of the charity. As soon as the charity left, those who wanted the charity back would have to give something to these people. I could give countless other examples, but I'll move onto how I believe GiveDirectly engages in this type of toxic charity. I worked in Sigombe for a few months, and got to know some of the locals quite well. I was helping them with farming activities, which involved helping them come up with a business plan. I was extremely shocked to realize how few records some (not all) of the people I was working with kept. I would ask how much money/time they spent on xyz capital/activity, and there wouldn't be an answer.

            I remember bringing up toxic charity with one of farmers I was working with, when he mentioned your charity. He explained to me how men who got the money would spend it on alcohol, and that one person died of drunk driving. Women, sick of the country life, would take the money and their children, and leave their husband to try to start a new life in the city. More often than not, they wouldn't be able to make it for long in the city and they would either turn to prostitution or come back to the village and get abused by their husband.

            While I did not directly witness the second harm, I definitely saw the first. The spending of charity money on harmful things by financially illiterate people was rampant.

            What I am curious about is how aware you are of these things. If there are any statistics you could provide on the long-term quality of life for individuals who received resources from your charity, I would be greatly appreciative. If it does seem like people are being helped in the long run, then I apologize and will immediately start rooting for you guys.

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            thanks for the thoughtful note. I hear a lot of these stories talking to people about aid programs of all stripes and sorts across Africa and Asia, and I do think there poorly designed programs out there that can end up doing a lot of harm. that said, researchers evaluating GD haven't found this, and systematic reviews of evidence on the impacts of cash transfers haven't found it- some links to get started

            https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/18802

            [–]jayareil 9 points10 points  (1 child)

            Is this test being conducted in coordination with leaders or groups from the area?

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

            the funding and operational decisions will come from us, but as with any of our projects we’ll work with local leaders to get their buy-in and also learn how we can craft the study to inform policy questions they have. (for example, in Kenya a big question is optimal size of social protection payments.)

            [–]mitwhatiswhom 5 points6 points  (1 child)

            Do you find the mpesa platform that is almost ubiquitous in Kenya to be an aid in distribution of the basic income?

            Also I just want to say I am a huge fan of the way you are going about this. We need to be looking for specific answers to specific questions and not looking for silver bullet solutions to poverty that are based in ideology and not data. Having worked in the area you are in now I can say it is almost always a more complex circumstance than an ideology is capable of addressing.

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            thanks for the support, I appreciate that

            M-Pesa isn't perfect but makes life much easier. as you probably know GD is also in Uganda and Rwanda, and at Segovia we're doing deployments across E and W Africa, Asia, and Europe. huge variation in quality of the payments infrastructure

            [–]IknwURbtwhtamI 6 points7 points  (4 children)

            How would you define extreme poverty?

            [–]beached89 8 points9 points  (3 children)

            Extreme poverty is defined by the UN. Extreme poverty is currently defined as living on less then $1.25 a day.

            [–]MaxGhenis 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            Specifically, $1.25 PPP in 2005 dollars, and Niehaus said here that they're targeting $1.50 PPP, which would eliminate poverty for recipients. Technically I think the World Bank defines it, and they're planning to raise it to $1.90 PPP (Wikipedia).

            [–]Frikster 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Forgive me if this shows ignorance on the topic, but have you had any issues with people who are living on the cusp of this (I don't know, say $3 a day) where they then become disempowered for not being selected by the program? (Their friends become better off than them, but they don't)

            [–]valedictorian09 3 points4 points  (2 children)

            As a college student, what can I do to best qualify myself to work on projects like these in the future?

            [–]sambodhiprem 5 points6 points  (1 child)

            Hi Paul, will crypto currencies like Bitcoin help you and your work?

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            I think they can help a bit.

            to give you a sense, of our ~9% cost of of delivering a dollar to a Kenyan recipient, around 3% is money transfer fees. of that, around 1.5% is FX spread and 1.5% is in-country mobile money tariff. cryptocurriences don't help much with the latter which reflects the real value of building and running agent networks in remote areas, but they could help on FX if the market becomes less centralized and spreads drop. FX markets are still pretty opaque, slow.

            [–]unreedemed1 5 points6 points  (1 child)

            How do you deal with the cultural pressures around money? In this part of the world, it is assumed anyone with money should pay for their extended family completely. It is why people in my community rush to purchase things they don't necessarily need--so they don't have to give the money away. How do you deal with this (and other) cultural factors?

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            recipients think / talk to us about this a bit, and interestingly one thing they say they value about mobile money is the privacy of getting acknowledgment on their own device and cashing out whenever they want. one thing we do to facilitate this is push to avoid centralized "cash-out" days as much as possible, to max privacy. this is on my list of things I think it may be worth testing experimentally - how does publicity of receipt affect use and impact.

            [–]2noame 40 points41 points  (4 children)

            Hi Paul! Moderator of /r/basicincome here. Thank you for doing this AMA and thank you as well for investing such a great amount of resources (especially with your upcoming UBI experiment!) in the idea of simply trusting people with cash.

            Just today Eduardo Porter over at the New York Times, posted what he considers a takedown of the idea of universal basic income, and titled it Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty. He is not the first to make such claims and will certainly not be the last, but what I find most telling is his and others' complete lack of evidence to support his/their view.

            What I mean of course by lack of evidence is that he points to not a single cash transfer study. He doesn't say, a randomized controlled trial was done in "Location" where cash was given to the poor without strings and poverty actually went up. He doesn't say this of course because there is no such evidence. Where cash is given, cash reduces poverty.

            With that said, my question to you is do you even know of any evidence where a RCT somewhere showed that cash grants did not reduce poverty? Is there a single example you can think of where increasing the incomes of the poor led to poor outcomes?

            Eduardo Porter also makes the claim that giving cash somehow destroys the work incentive and yet again, your own data disproves this. People given cash in Uganda and Kenya actually work more because they're enabled to do so, especially via entrepreneurial ventures.

            And that leads me to my second question. I've read some incredible examples of how people started their own businesses using GD's cash grants. What's your own personal favorite example of the creative use of cash to start a business that perhaps you would have never thought of?

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 36 points37 points  (3 children)

            thanks- yeah, we've all been enjoying Eduardo's very timely piece this morning =)

            hilariously, NYT just recently ran the story on systematic review of experimental evidence that cash transfers in emerging markets haven't reduced work effort - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/business/the-myth-of-welfares-corrupting-influence-on-the-poor.html

            to your question- there are surely individual examples of bad outcomes (eg there is definitely someone somewhere who got transfer and got drunk), but we haven't seen any evidence of cases where this was systematically true. and I think it's that distinction between anecdotes and averages that we have to absorb.

            to your second question - my favorite is the guy who started a band and recorded the GD theme song

            https://soundcloud.com/givedirectly/givedirectly-theme-song

            [–]egohara13 4 points5 points  (1 child)

            Hey Paul, I've been a big fan since reading about GiveDirectly a few years ago. I live in Nairobi now, but before worked in healthcare in rural western Kenya. What is your M&E plan for dealing with the political landscape and tribal differences as the election cycle approaches? And do you define the UBI based off medium income in different areas? As a UBI for Nairobi would look very different than a UBI for West Pokot?

            [–]bluwaterdragoon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            I would also like to know about these things.

            [–]mySSnumis640936916 4 points5 points  (1 child)

            I've heard a lot about your (very robust) UCT trials. My question: Has anyone has looked directly at the effect of remittance payments of immigrants working in wealthy countries? There would seem to be a lot of parallels and a large sample to draw from.

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            there's less on remittances than you'd hope, but some high quality evidence. I'd start with Dean Yang's review and then work forward to more recent stuff (esp p 138)

            http://sites.lsa.umich.edu/deanyang/wp-content/uploads/sites/205/2014/12/yang_2011_jep.25.3.pdf

            [–]DeSchjizz 4 points5 points  (1 child)

            Hi Paul,

            This sounds like a great initiative. Kudos to you and your team.

            My question is what percentage of my donation would reach the recipient once administration and logistics costs are removed?

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            thanks - we're projecting around 90%, similar to the lump-sum transfers that are our current default. additional long-run monitoring / followup costs offset by larger total amount transferred over the lifecycle

            [–]waterplace 8 points9 points  (4 children)

            Paul, what will your team do to avoid creating dependency? For example, are your beneficiaries being trained in financial literacy, savings, and how to invest those dollars in increasing their household livelihoods? What will those families do when your funds go away?

            Creating a culture of dependency could do significant harm, unless at the same time you are helping the community become more self-sufficient, resilient, and sustainable.

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 9 points10 points  (3 children)

            we're not going to be doing those things. the evidence on training interventions is pretty bad, sadly, and the evidence on cash so far is that it doesn't create dependency. but maybe it will this time, and that's why testing is important.

            http://economics.mit.edu/files/10849

            [–]waterplace 8 points9 points  (2 children)

            Thanks Paul for your response. As a development professional, I don't think I have the same read of the study you linked.

            From your linked (small & preliminary) study, "find no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work." This is different than fostering a culture of dependency, or helping train families to know how to responsibly use their income and leverage it towards resilient and sustainable growth. Families will continue to work, because they have to, even with cash payments of some kind -- they're just that poor.

            But what I'm talking about is their journey out of poverty, and not establishing a culture of dependency that can contribute to families staying poor. One of the biggest challenges we face is that impoverished families lack knowledge: how to do agriculture sustainably, what inputs to use, how to manage soil and water, what crops to plant & when, how to get the best prices at market, how to be financially literate & how to use savings. I can't disagree more with your opinion that training has a bad track record or lacks evidence-based results. You can look up almost any study on capacity building and it's the same principle.

            In short, having done this for a long time and helping create and manage dozens of multi-million projects with hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries -- the approach you're suggesting is missing some key links. But, as you say, it'll be a great way to test, and testing is important.

            [–]eirikm 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            Is there any technological change that could have (or will have) a positive/negative impact on GD's model and/or UBI in Africa? If yes, which and why?

            [–]midgetcastle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            What do you think is the best method to try and get a basic income up and running in western democracies?

            [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

            If you could make one change in how your recipients spend their money once you give it to them, just by snapping your fingers and wishing, what would that change be?

            And don't say nothing! I understand that you believe in direct no-strings-attached gifts.

            [–]Nick_Juma 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            That the quality of their meals would change.....the meal would be more balanced. The second thing i would wish is for them to invest the balance wisely. Everyone deserves decency........decent food and decent life.

            [–]thekingoffranceisbal 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            What are your thoughts about the effective altruism movement, and how its mission might intersect with GD's?

            [–]algysidfgoa87hfalsjd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I am also curious about the answer to this question, though given its age I guess we won't get an answer.

            [–]n0ttsweet 2 points3 points  (3 children)

            Has anyone considered using the total donated funds to set up an investment portfolio and use the income generated to fund people's "basic income"? Why dry up the well?

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            we did. there's a lot to like about this approach, but you need to raise more in total for a given sample size if you don't give down the capital, so at the end of the day it's just a question of how long you want to pay to run the thing for

            [–]randomusername318 3 points4 points  (1 child)

            Hi there, thanks so much for doing this AMA! I have considered giving to your charity however a friend who works in academia has raised concerns over;

            1. That official university connected experiments need to first pass an ethics comity, whereas this would not be the case here

            2. The lack of an independent auditing body for the project execution/results

            Are you able to confirm/deny or provide further information on these aspects?

            Thanks so much!

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            measurement and eval here is being done by university-affiliated researchers (including Abhijit Banerjee, MIT) and has to pass all the usual IRB scrutiny

            [–]BandaGun 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            Your organization takes money from an exogenous source (donations) in order to fund the basic income. Obviously this won't work for developed countries because there is no exogenous donor base. Instead it would need to be endogenous sources (taxes, tariffs, etc.). What are the ramifications of an endogenous source compared to an exogenous source?

            [–]PaddingtonTheBeast 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            I don't know, if anyone has asked this before me, but here we go:

            If you only give the minimum wage to certain people in an area - doesn't that mean that these people will become "average in wealth", while the people not included will drop further down the poverty list? (Meaning, the average wage in said country will increase putting the people off the experiment further down the list)

            Second question: How can you make sure that prices of goods won't rise with the changes made on wages - (maybe) creating inflation - and making the poor people on minimum wage stay poor?

            [–]moneygivingman 10 points11 points  (1 child)

            Hi Paul,

            I think this is a cool idea, but I'm curious what the thought process is about how something like this could scale globally. I guess it seems like it would only work as long as there is a dichotomy of inequality in which there exists a rich person to give and a poor person to receive. Is there any plan about how something like this would work in say, the United States? There are people sleeping all over the same streets billionaires drive on in Southern California, and this is in a country that has the ability to print the world's reserve currency at will.

            I guess what I'm getting at is: given that people are greedy hoarders who don't generally care much for their fellow man, how can a project like this scale? Do you envision some sort of MMT powered utopia where the government takes on your role? Or do you see capitalism fixing this system by having private benefactors voluntarily participating in some sort of patronage system where Amazon Welfare Rewards will pay people $300 a week in exchange for running an Amazon OS and sharing their data?

            P.S. Mr. Mathison would be so proud!

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

            globally, I'm quite bullish. the global poverty gap to eliminate extreme poverty is ~$65B / year, which is half what we spend on ODA alone, let along local gov't funding. so I think we can do this and do it soon.

            domestically in the US the numbers look harder to me, simply because the cost of achieving a basic standard of living is so much higher. personally I think incremental steps towards a less complex / more cash-based social protection system are the more plausible next step.

            a hat tip to Pistol Pete!

            [–]lyinggrump 8 points9 points  (2 children)

            What is it like to do this kind of test?

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

            complex :)

            there are logistical challenges on the implementation side - how do you credibly commit to keep delivering payments to people for the next 15 yrs - what happens if they move to a different country? if exchange rates change? etc.

            there are design choices on the research side - how should we size transfers to max policy relevance of the study? what outcomes should the research team focus on? etc.

            we're pretty excited about the challenge

            [–]LivingInTheVoid 9 points10 points  (2 children)

            do you anticipate any way that dishonest people could exploit this idea? I ask because in every advancement of our society, there are people who will attempt to manipulate it for their own benefit.

            [–]paulniehaus[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

            yeah. before GD I worked mainly on anti-corruption with gov't of India. all programs have to manage this stuff, there are always people who try.. the question is how to modernize delivery systems to reduce this, and I think GD and also Segovia are playing an important role in this. digital transfers and mobile phones help enormously relative to the old world of putting bags of rice on a truck and hoping they get into the right hands.

            [–]snaswa 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            I think that the biggest potential threat to transparency for this kind pf programme would be middleman issues where people,as you say,may try to manipulate funds and deprive those most in need of what they deserve,by say,deducting an amount of cash before finally sending this to the actual recipient.GiveDirectly,has,I think done an afficient job of making sure that cash is directly delivered to the actual recipients themselves without the need for middleman handling the cash,so the question of exploitation is almost not an issue,unless of course clever con men device shrewd ways of being able to swindle funds,which would be very highly unlikely.

            [–]InFirstGear 2 points3 points  (2 children)

            Do they have access to email, or text messaging? Or would that distort the experiment, if you introduced a donor-to-recipient connection?

            [–]snaswa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            This is how it is back home in my village of Namawanga,Bungoma County,Western Kenya....generally, in spite of people being poor and needy and in my village,we have some form of access to mobile phones and we do have an MPesa point right at the market where people can easily get their mobile cash transfers and stuff done. Recently, my brother who lives in Nairobi lobbied very hard on Twitter to have a Safaricom GPS booster installed at home in the village and the good news is that someone heard him out and Safaricom actually did send an engineer to the village and the booster installed.This is such a huge help for the entire community, saved from over 10 years of poor network coverage.

            [–]dilatory_tactics 2 points3 points  (7 children)

            Have you considered calling it and structuring it as a dividend rather than income?

            Giving people an ownership stake in the wealth, resources, and technology of a nation and of our species, and having that wealth pay a dividend, has different implications both psychologically and from a resource-limitation perspective than "basic income," which makes people out to be parasites.

            Wealthy people who live off of wealth dividends are fine, but our species hates people who are painted as parasites.

            [–]Nosiege 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            So if you're not a government, and only testing it, what happens when you run out of money, or end the test?

            [–]ea2u 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            How much do you donate to your charity?

            [–][deleted]  (7 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]Nick_Juma 5 points6 points  (6 children)

              Quite interesting. The same model can be implemented in other countries and most probably work the way it is working in Finland. But how does the government of Finland deal with people who do not need the money? Are they still given the money? Is it a uniform policy that applies to all students?

              [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children)

              All citizen and class A resident students (if attending university) receive the basic student aid allotment.

              Edit: It should probably be noted that there is also no cost for attending Finnish universities.

              [–]UglyMuffins 9 points10 points  (3 children)

              This doesn't seem like a fair representation of how basic income would work in the real world.

              For one, the money doesn't come from donations but from the government who distributes money from taxes.

              Do the recipients even know that this 'free money' is coming from donations rather than from the government? I reckon their spending usage would differ based on how they know where it came from.

              [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              So you're seeing if a UBI would be feasible if it could be funded entirely by donations from random people? Isn't one of the larger problems with the idea that money has to come from somewhere, and isn't that being ignored here?

              [–]Amongus 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              Any relation to Dave Niehaus? Former broadcaster for the seattle mariners?

              [–]paulniehaus[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

              no but I wish I had that guy's voice

              [–]Radu47 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              What would you suggest is the crux of Basic Income resistance amongst humans in a general sense? Factors you've observed over time that contribute to the inertia we see at the moment. Thanks again.

              [–]brandywine42 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Are you afraid of any negative side effects of this program?

              [–]forgetful_storytellr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              What kind of research did you do prior to launching this campaign?

              From what I understand, via a firsthand account, The culture of money in East and Sub-Saharan Africa is very different than in the Western World. Specifically, that the concept of "saving" money is not real. What tends to happen is that they spend whatever money they have on the most immediate need of themselves, a friend, or a neighbor, regardless of long term costs.

              Have you guys found the same in your research, and if so how do you plan to control spending to ensure that money is being spent in the most efficient areas rather than the most immediate?

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              [removed]

                [–]LumenSand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Can you explain how this project relates to basic income?

                Since all you are doing is collecting donations and handing them out. Where basic income would entail, in your example, taxing East African citizens that earn more than $1/day and giving it to those who make less than $1/day. And the taxation under basic income would not be voluntary. So any result that you collect on you project will not apply to basic income, but would apply to charities in general.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                How is any data you collect supposed to apply to first world countries?

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Hello, as seen in the photo Mpesa is a big deal. I work with cryptocurrency and believe that this will be the technology that allows you to complete your goal. What do you think about this?

                [–]Stone_LX9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Do you think we should give them free condoms? Seems like we've been giving them money and food for years. Then they just have even more children and nothing ever fucking changes.

                [–]RedRiverBlues 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                What's the point of this exercise if it doesn't address the single largest concern: it can't possibly be self sustaining and that it would devastate an economy? You're just injecting donated money into poor communities. Of course you'll have good outcomes. In reality, where will that money come from?

                [–]DavidDann437 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Should we call this basic income welfare?